technicolor-misfit:fredklein: technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.

...which is why she said "this is the likely culprit", and not "this is absolutely, definitely the dirty rotten thief".

Without better evidence that "this is the likely culprit," I wouldn't say "this is the likely culprit."

Had she said "we believe this young man may be in possession of the phone," I might have shared it.

It's every bit as likely that some other kid took the phone and then ditched it for fear of getting caught. And I'm not going to hang the label of "thief" around some 13 year old's neck EVEN WITH just enough distancing legalese to protect me from a libel suit.

Dude. Life gets a LOT easier once you stop caring about right, wrong, or other people.

HMS_Blinkin:How did the teacher not see the girl hiding in the locker? The video shows where she hid, and it wasn't all that subtle.

/good for the kids for standing up for themselves.

She may have been wearing darker clothes. Besides, I'd never think a teenage human could fit into one of those half-lockers.

randomjsa:I am not the least bit surprised that the principals first reaction is to try and cover it up. Part of the problem in our schools is this systematic and union driven "We Do No Wrong" system that is almost as corrupt as the cops.

randomjsa:I am not the least bit surprised that the principals first reaction is to try and cover it up. Part of the problem in our schools is this systematic and union driven "We Do No Wrong" system that is almost as corrupt as the cops.

I'll usually be the first to bash a union, but this isn't union. It is school administrator.

Alabama's teachers and school administrators aren't union in the traditional sense (no collective bargaining) and their first reaction would exactly the same thing.

It is a combination of a protect the kingdom mentality and some kind of twisted thinking that leads them to believe that the law simply stops at the border of their campus and/or the door to their classroom and thus they can simply do whatever suits them.

Administrator trying to cover up evidence? That's good for a promotion. My alma mater had an issue a few years after I graduated, while I was employed there, where some members of the football team allegedly violated another member with a wooden dildo. The principal retrieved the dildo from the locker room and got rid of it, never to be found. The next year he was relieved of his position, and promoted with a fat raise to the district office.

You Are All Sheep:Barfmaker: Earguy: Future Fark: Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.

In some places I believe she could be charged for illegal wiretapping, maybe that's if there's audio on the video.

Yea if they let this stand we'll be able to video cops everywhere without them having legal recourse to taze.

It seems to be legal to record public officials in public places performing public functions. But officially, stealing and beating up citizens are not public functions, so perhaps such activities are protected.

JustGetItRight:Mikey1969: To be fair to the principal, the story could be that they didn't want someone posting this all over the 'net, and that the teacher would get adequately investigated, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was an attempted coverup.

Nice attempt to be fair, but assuming the story is reasonably accurate it was a coverup attempt. The sole proper action for the principal to have taken once viewing the video would have been to immediately pick up the phone and call the police.

She didn't video him sleeping on the job or helping a kid cheat on a test, she videoed him committing theft. That's not a violation of policy to be dealt with administratively, it is a crime and any investigation is the responsibility of the police.

Nope, he did what every good school administrator tries to do - get rid of the evidence because it will make his school look bad. Hopefully, there's a mandatory reporting law that can get him charged too.

Vernon Freedom:Maybe if she put her backpack in her locker instead of putting herself in her locker this could have been avoided. If it wasn't for people like her,there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?

So would you blame someone for stealing your mower if you left it in the garage with the door up while you were in the back yard?

Or would that be your fault for not locking your stuff down like fort knox.....

My take on it is if you don't own it leave it the fark alone. Just because you can get to something doesn't mean you can take it. This biatch be stealing and EVERYONE hates a thief (unless you're also a thief...)

BarkingUnicorn:JustGetItRight: Mikey1969: To be fair to the principal, the story could be that they didn't want someone posting this all over the 'net, and that the teacher would get adequately investigated, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was an attempted coverup.

Nice attempt to be fair, but assuming the story is reasonably accurate it was a coverup attempt. The sole proper action for the principal to have taken once viewing the video would have been to immediately pick up the phone and call the police.

She didn't video him sleeping on the job or helping a kid cheat on a test, she videoed him committing theft. That's not a violation of policy to be dealt with administratively, it is a crime and any investigation is the responsibility of the police.

Nope, he did what every good school administrator tries to do - get rid of the evidence because it will make his school look bad. Hopefully, there's a mandatory reporting law that can get him charged too.

technicolor-misfit:I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.

In any of the scenarios you put forward, the kid is guilty of theft.

Unless the phone is at the lost and found, or unless the thief took a picture of someone else. But you didn't put forward either of those options. I wonder if that's because you think if you find a phone, you get to keep it? That makes you a thief too.

This idea that people under the age of 18 are not entitled to the same access to justice as adults has got to stop. It is not the principal's decision to make, if the students want to proceed with the accusation against the theif that stole their belongings. If the teacher rummaged through the principal's desk or purse, I'm sure they would react much differently.

I am kind of bitter about this subject, as someone who was sentanced to time in a facility at 16 with no crime committed, just one adult's suggestion that I be put away for awhile. I was not allowed to speak in my own defense and no evidence was offered at my 30 second "hearing".

These are two different situations, I know...but the idea that minors are not automatically granted the same police protection and/or rights is really disturbing to me.

technicolor-misfit:I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.

Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

technicolor-misfit:I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.

lostcat:Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken. A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

JustGetItRight:lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken. A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

ko_kyi:It is a difference in degree but not kind between "delete the video and let us handle this quietly" and "Tell Sandusky not to bring kids into the locker room anymore, and let's handle this quietly."

And "just classify all the evidence and don't tell the American public, let's handle this quietly."

JustGetItRight:lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken. A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.

ialdabaoth:ko_kyi: It is a difference in degree but not kind between "delete the video and let us handle this quietly" and "Tell Sandusky not to bring kids into the locker room anymore, and let's handle this quietly."

And "just classify all the evidence and don't tell the American public, let's handle this quietly."

lostcat:JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken. A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.

randomjsa:I am not the least bit surprised that the principals first reaction is to try and cover it up. Part of the problem in our schools is this systematic and union driven "We Do No Wrong" system that is almost as corrupt as the cops.

You just HAD to throw a union jab in there didn't ya, Skippy? The probable reasoning is that the principal wanted to not have his school get negative press, and would have rather handled the teacher internally. Now, I'm not excusing that awful kind of reasoning. I think that both the principal and the teacher should be fired. But it wasn't anything to do with the union; It was about the reputation of the school that the principal was freaking out about. Wrong-headed and stupid, certainly. But, you being you, decided to blame it on "union thugs".

the ha ha guy:lostcat: JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken. A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.

The school administrators are usually quick about calling police on students suspected of the same crime, so why shouldn't the police be called when it's a teacher committing the theft?

I see. You are just making assertions based on your emotional response to something about these stores. You tell me that something "usually" happens, and then cite one, sensationalized story that appeared here on Fark as proof to support your assertion.

The very fact that the administrator in your example made a bad decision is seen in the fact that the story made it to Fark. In this case, the principal was (hopefully) trying to handle the incident internally without bringing a lot of negative publicity to a school. The video was leaked anyway, and here we are...Getting our panties all wadded because of what happened.

lostcat:JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken. A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.

Wow, you sure managed to pack a lot of fail in two sentences.

If the employee was stealing the change out of the coke machine or swiping and reselling selling toner cartridges, the decision to handle administratively would be perfectly appropriate but the employer isn't the victim here so whether to involve the police or not isn't their call. The decision to involve law enforcement rests solely in the hands of the people who were robbed. In this case the victims were not even fellow employees but students - minors entrusted to the care of the school.

SO, if you're a school administrator and decide to cover up crimes your employees commit against students, enjoy the hell out of trying to cover it up, seeing the police involved anyhow, watching your employees and maybe you also arrested, creating even further embarrassment for your organization, having outraged parents AND facing potential civil actions for failing to properly protect the minor students under your care.

As for me, I'll just stick with doing the right thing and call the victim's parents and cops.

I'm not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the police only need to be brought into a theft case where the thief has been identified if the other party decides to press charges.

The police don't need to be notified of a situation if the parties affected work out an agreement. Granted, many people work it out by saying, "I'm calling the police." They are not "moral overseers" who have to be aware of every wrongdoing.

JustGetItRight:lostcat: JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken. A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.

Wow, you sure managed to pack a lot of fail in two sentences.

If the employee was stealing the change out of the coke machine or swiping and reselling selling toner cartridges, the decision to handle administratively would be perfectly appropriate but the employer isn't the victim here so whether to involve the police or not isn't their call. The decision to involve law enforcement rests solely in the hands of the people who were robbed. In this case the victims were not even fellow employees but students - minors entrusted to the care of the school.

SO, if you're a school administrator and decide to cover up crimes your employees commit against students, enjoy the hell out of trying to cover it up, seeing the police involved anyhow, watching your employees and maybe you also arrested, creating even further embarrassment for your organization, having outraged parents AND facing potential civil actions for failing to properly prot ...

Who said he was trying to cover up anything? You are just assuming that. Just as I'm assuming that he wanted to try to get everyone involved together to work through the problem privately rather than turn it into a public circus, with students being distracted by the possible need to appear in public court to testify against a (well-liked) teacher.

A good administrator is going to try to avoid that situation and handle something like this privately.

Again, I say that if you would prefer to have the police cars pull up to the school, have the police wander the halls, have students questioned, have the teacher lead away by police in handcuffs, then you probably wouldn't be very popular with the school board that appointed you.

lostcat:I'm not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the police only need to be brought into a theft case where the thief has been identified if the other party decides to press charges.

The police don't need to be notified of a situation if the parties affected work out an agreement. Granted, many people work it out by saying, "I'm calling the police." They are not "moral overseers" who have to be aware of every wrongdoing.

Correct, but you're still missing the point. The administrator couldn't work out anything. He wasn't the victim and yet he took it upon himself to attempt to destroy evidence possessed by the actual victim - a minor.

At the VERY LEAST, he should have called the victim's parents. Since this a) appears to have not been a one time incident and b) he's probably governed by some form of mandatory reporting he should have also called the police.

lostcat:Who said he was trying to cover up anything? You are just assuming that. Just as I'm assuming that he wanted to try to get everyone involved together to work through the problem privately rather than turn it into a public circus, with students being distracted by the possible need to appear in public court to testify against a (well-liked) teacher.

A good administrator is going to try to avoid that situation and handle something like this privately.

Again, I say that if you would prefer to have the police cars pull up to the school, have the police wander the halls, have students questioned, have the teacher lead away by police in handcuffs, then you probably wouldn't be very popular with the school board that appointed you.

And again, HE DOES NOT HAVE EITHER THE RIGHT OR THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. HE WAS NOT THE VICTIM.

By attempting to get the evidence of a crime destroyed, he has himself committed a crime.

And by the way, attempting to 'work through the problem privately' is the very definition of a cover up.

lostcat:the ha ha guy: lostcat: JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken. A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.

The school administrators are usually quick about calling police on students suspected of the same crime, so why shouldn't the police be called when it's a teacher committing the theft?

I see. You are just making assertions based on your emotional response to something about these stores. You tell me that something "usually" happens, and then cite one, sensationalized story that appeared here on Fark as proof to support your assertion.

The very fact that the administrator in your example made a bad decision is seen in the fact that the story made it to Fark. In this case, the principal was (hopefully) trying to handle the incident internally without bringing a lot of negative publicity to a school. The video was leaked anyway, and here we are...Getting our panties all wadded because of what happened.

And you're assuming that he would have an impartial investigation despite destroying the evidence after only one viewing, without allowing anyone else involved to see the evidence that he based his findings on, and without retaining even one copy of the evidence he would need to defend the school against a wrongful termination lawsuit.

You know how cops will sometimes demand that people delete video from their phones when caught beating someone into a pulp? I bet you think they're just trying to protect the sanctity of the Internal Investigation too...

JustGetItRight:lostcat: I'm not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the police only need to be brought into a theft case where the thief has been identified if the other party decides to press charges.

The police don't need to be notified of a situation if the parties affected work out an agreement. Granted, many people work it out by saying, "I'm calling the police." They are not "moral overseers" who have to be aware of every wrongdoing.

Correct, but you're still missing the point. The administrator couldn't work out anything. He wasn't the victim and yet he took it upon himself to attempt to destroy evidence possessed by the actual victim - a minor.

At the VERY LEAST, he should have called the victim's parents. Since this a) appears to have not been a one time incident and b) he's probably governed by some form of mandatory reporting he should have also called the police.

Again you are assuming that the principal, or superintendent, was not planning on taking any action.

According to the article, the teacher is on administrative leave, and the school district is investigating the matter.

"The teacher is on administrative leave,. The Linden School District told ABCNews.com that it is investigating the matter, but the superintendent did not immediately respond to requests for further information."

There is nothing in the story to indicate how much time has passed since the student showed the video to the principal. It could have been just a couple of days, it could have been weeks. But you are assuming that the principal just sat on the information and was planning to do nothing. Again, I'm not sure where you are coming up with this assumption. I think that something like this would warrant some consideration before contacting parents. You might want to try to verify who had money stolen and who just said that they had money stolen. The stakes are also high. Someone's job is on the line, and you don't know if this teacher has some sort of behavioral issue that might mitigate the situation.

Again...Escalating this to a public incident with the police involved is something that most people would want to avoid, especially with minors involved in the situation.

JustGetItRight:lostcat: Who said he was trying to cover up anything? You are just assuming that. Just as I'm assuming that he wanted to try to get everyone involved together to work through the problem privately rather than turn it into a public circus, with students being distracted by the possible need to appear in public court to testify against a (well-liked) teacher.

A good administrator is going to try to avoid that situation and handle something like this privately.

Again, I say that if you would prefer to have the police cars pull up to the school, have the police wander the halls, have students questioned, have the teacher lead away by police in handcuffs, then you probably wouldn't be very popular with the school board that appointed you.

And again, HE DOES NOT HAVE EITHER THE RIGHT OR THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. HE WAS NOT THE VICTIM.

By attempting to get the evidence of a crime destroyed, he has himself committed a crime.

And by the way, attempting to 'work through the problem privately' is the very definition of a cover up.

No he's not the victim, but he is the representative of the school to the parents. In a way he is responsible for the crime. If he can go to the parents and explain the situation, he may avoid a public situation. He may not. Some parents may choose to press charges, but at least he had the opportunity to go to them and explain the situation, and offer some course of action that didn't involve the courts and their minor children getting articles written about them.

the ha ha guy:lostcat: the ha ha guy: lostcat: JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken. A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.

The school administrators are usually quick about calling police on students suspected of the same crime, so why shouldn't the police be called when it's a teacher committing the theft?

I see. You are just making assertions based on your emotional response to something about these stores. You tell me that something "usually" happens, and then cite one, sensationalized story that appeared here on Fark as proof to support your assertion.

The very fact that the administrator in your example made a bad decision is seen in the fact that the story made it to Fark. In this case, the principal was (hopefully) trying to handle the incident internally without bringing a lot of negative publicity to a school. The video was leaked anyway, and here we are...Getting our panties all wadded because of what happened.

And you're assuming that he would have an impartial investigation despite destroying the evidence after o ...

the ha ha guy:lostcat: And you're assuming that he wouldn't have an impartial investigation?

No, I'm assuming that he CANNOT have an impartial investigation, because by definition an investigation with no evidence cannot be impartial.

Regardless, what right does a school administrator have to demand the destruction of other people's property, especially when said property depicts a crime being committed?

Again, you are assuming that he "demanded" the destruction of the video. From the article...

"He said that he'll investigate it and he told us to delete the video, but I had already sent it to my dad," she said.

That's paraphrased by the student in an interview with a journalist. There's no real information on which to base the substance of the discussion. He could have said, "I demand that you delete that video or I will suspend you." Or he could have said, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please delete the video, because I don't want it to end up on YouTube before I've had a chance to talk to the teacher and hear her explanation of what she's doing."

Also, I think, based on some other comments, that the principal may have been concerned about the legality of recording video of someone on school grounds without their knowledge or consent. Again, he had all the evidence he needed to confront the teacher (note that she's been suspended).

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

The axe you brought to grind is so hugely obvious that I just can't take anything you say as impartial and considered with logic.

lostcat:Again, he had all the evidence he needed to confront the teacher (note that she's been suspended).

The police are currently investigating, and they will almost certainly want to see the evidence, as would a judge if the case goes to trial.

So, if the principal took it to the police, that invalidates your original assertion that he wanted to keep it quiet.If the student took it to the police, as appears to be the case, the police investigation itself is likely why she has been suspended.

lostcat:That's paraphrased by the student in an interview with a journalist. There's no real information on which to base the substance of the discussion. He could have said, "I demand that you delete that video or I will suspend you." Or he could have said, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please delete the video, because I don't want it to end up on YouTube before I've had a chance to talk to the teacher and hear her explanation of what she's doing."

The principal knew that the teacher committed a crime. The principal asked for (what he thought was) the only copy of the evidence be destroyed.

Call it what you will, but the principal did knowingly and purposely want to destroy evidence relating to a criminal investigation.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

The axe you brought to grind is so hugely obvious that I just can't take anything you say as impartial and considered with logic.

Ah, so you are a school administrator. It all makes sense now.

I'm sorry I wasted my time responding to your posts, since it's obvious that in your imaginary world administrators are incapable of doing wrong.

the ha ha guy:lostcat: Again, he had all the evidence he needed to confront the teacher (note that she's been suspended).

The police are currently investigating, and they will almost certainly want to see the evidence, as would a judge if the case goes to trial.

So, if the principal took it to the police, that invalidates your original assertion that he wanted to keep it quiet.If the student took it to the police, as appears to be the case, the police investigation itself is likely why she has been suspended.

lostcat: That's paraphrased by the student in an interview with a journalist. There's no real information on which to base the substance of the discussion. He could have said, "I demand that you delete that video or I will suspend you." Or he could have said, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please delete the video, because I don't want it to end up on YouTube before I've had a chance to talk to the teacher and hear her explanation of what she's doing."

The principal knew that the teacher committed a crime. The principal asked for (what he thought was) the only copy of the evidence be destroyed.

Call it what you will, but the principal did knowingly and purposely want to destroy evidence relating to a criminal investigation.

There was no criminal investigation.

Do you understand that?

If the student or her father had gone to the police, there would an investigation by the police.

They (or just she) chose to go to the principal. He was the investigator.

Why is that so hard to understand? Do people really just think that the police have to be involved in solving all of our problems?

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence. For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

The axe you brought to grind is so hugely obvious that I just can't take anything you say as impartial and considered with logic.

Ah, so you are a school administrator. It all makes sense now.

I'm sorry I wasted my time responding to your posts, since it's obvious that in your imaginary world administrators are incapable of doing wrong.

I work in marketing for a professional-services firm. Not sure what my career has to do with being able to argue what the right thing to do in a situation is.

In your imaginary world, administrators seem to all be nefarious villains who support the criminal activity of those they manage.

Again, I have to wonder about your extremely negative view and generalization.